Letters

Quality of instruction

The article by Dan Namowitz on the quality of flight instructors and instruction (" New Pilot: CFI Assessment," July Pilot) was of particular interest to me. The experience I'd like to share with you is related to a spin recovery. Spin recovery training was not part of my private curriculum, but I was fortunate (and I do mean fortunate) that my instructor thought it necessary to teach the skill, and I eventually became proficient at it.

Ten years later and prior to my instrument rating (scan is important), I found myself climbing out of Ramona Airport in Southern California in what's known as Santa Ana conditions (strong, hot winds from the desert blowing westerly toward the ocean). My underpowered Cessna 150 was struggling to maintain a 200-foot-per-minute climb rate. I soon became fixated with the approaching terrain, wondering whether I'd clear it. I hadn't noticed that I was now flying at a critically slow airspeed. As I turned downwind at about 1,000 feet agl, the near-30-knot tailwind at my back and critically slow airspeed culminated in an accelerated stall and, as I remember, at least 270 degrees of the first rotation of a spin.

I recovered from the spin and regained a positive rate of climb within 500 feet of the ground. My instructor quite literally saved my life, or at least equipped me with the ability to save my own.

I'll venture to say that most fatalities resulting from spins are not from those entered intentionally, but those resulting from a chain of conditions leading to a stall and spin. I'd like to urge any pilot who has not received spin training to seek it out.

Paul DeSantis AOPA 1099193
San Diego, California

The FAA's ticket program

I have been following the progress of the FAA's Streamlined Administrative Enforcement Process "ticket program" (" AOPA Action," July Pilot), and I find it most disturbing. I am really concerned about this program, especially after the Bob Hoover incident that occurred several years ago. That was an example of an FAA out of control, in a flat spin, that wouldn't admit that it was wrong.

Congress is currently providing a bill of rights because of abusive actions by the IRS. Under this plan, the FAA will be just as abusive as the IRS. An FAA inspector "suspects" some violation and writes me a ticket. If I do not agree with the writeup and do not sign, then I have an attitude problem. I have no appeal process. That is wrong. Are we not innocent until proven guilty? It seems lately that with the FAA you are guilty until you can prove that you are innocent, and then you are going up against an agency with lots of lawyers who will drain your resources.

Ross Richardson AOPA 417035
Sherman, Texas

Recently, my aircraft was the subject of an FAA inspection. Several aspects of this inspection were of great concern to me, and while I believe that the inspector's intent was positive, his apparent knowledge level of A&P-authorized practices and the degree of his familiarity with the FARs were a bit alarming.

The inspection was performed while I was not present (the aircraft was parked in a transient parking area). In addition to the "ticket" tied to the aircraft with a string, I found evidence of attempted forced entry into the cockpit (latches were left open). One of the noted citations was a violation of FAR 45, related to the size of registration markings. The inspector in this case was apparently not familiar with FAR 45.29, which allows two-inch registration marks on aircraft manufactured prior to November 1981 and not having since been painted.

While I believe the intent of the "ticket" program is good, I think that my personal experience serves as an example of how inexperienced inspectors can create totally unwarranted expenses for pilots. Of graver concern is the possibility of an inexperienced inspector potentially creating life-threatening damage to an aircraft during an attempted forced entry in the absence of the pilot in command. The program should be eliminated before it becomes a liability issue for both the FAA and the taxpayer, and most certainly before it becomes a safety issue for pilots.

Scott C. Adams AOPA 1211426
Riverside, California

Aeronautical safety

I liked Rod Machado's conclusion that, in contrast to cars, aeronautical safety is not based on statistics but on choices ("License to Learn: Lies, big lies, and statistics," July Pilot). As only 10 percent of the accidents are related to mechanical failures, I can control some 90 percent of the risk of fatal accidents by being smarter than the average pilot. Making sure that the maintenance is done regularly and properly will increase the controllable percentage.

In my opinion, there is no excuse for inadvertent VFR flying into instrument conditions or into icing conditions, because I can easily access, free of charge, a huge amount of advance information to avoid weather. If the forecast turns out to be wrong, I can still turn around early and land. This eliminates 25 percent of the risk. Moreover, if I don't buzz my neighbors and do not fly too low, I won't hit wires, terrain, or trees, or stall at too low an altitude. That eliminates another 10 percent. My primary personal target is therefore to avoid one-third of the controllable risk of a fatal accident by simply not being stupid.

The statistics are right, and Rod Machado is wrong in calling them a lie. They reflect only the average behavior of all pilots and do not tell how many pilots are smart or stupid. The point is that smart pilots take a much lower risk, the others a higher risk.

Lothar Krings AOPA 1066381
Baden, Switzerland

Weather on the Web

Regarding " Wx Watch: Weather on the Web" (July Pilot), I still access the Purdue weather site (at http://wxp.eas.purdue.edu/). It does seem to me that they changed their address some time back, but they are still up and running, as far as I know. Try 'em again - you'll like 'em.

Raymond H. Smith AOPA 888930
Fredericksburg, Texas

Since the July issue was published, we've learned of several other interesting weather-oriented Web sites, ranging from comprehensive ( www.aviationweather.com) to specific ( http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/misc/). Regional sites include one for pilots in the South ( http://users.worldnetla.net/~flying/) and another for aviators in Hawaii ( http://lumahai.soest.hawaii.edu) - Ed.

IFR planning issues

I enjoyed Peter A. Bedell's " Instrument Insights: Precise But Flexible Flying" (July Pilot) very much and suspect that it will be beneficial to both new and old instrument pilots. I would like to add to this excellent article by mentioning a simple planning tool that I've used over the years.

When planning an instrument flight where weather may be a factor, I always have a VFR chart open. This provides several significant visual tools for an instrument pilot during initial planning. First, it lets us know the type of terrain we are going to be flying over, just in case we must choose an alternate destination should something significant change en route. Second, it quickly shows me where potential instrument airports are along the route, the surrounding terrain, and any congested airspace. Third, it visually tells me where my potential alternates are, simply by my looking at where controlled airspace goes to the surface.

I also fly with the VFR charts readily accessible and prefolded or already open when operating IFR. Planning an instrument flight can be an intimidating exercise with a multitude of required tasks just to meet regulatory and common sense goals. The VFR charts help me to eliminate unnecessary research, pick a more appropriate route, and find a safe haven for those isolated times that I need to get down now.

Dave Balthazor AOPA 610259
Chesapeake, Virginia

In Bedell's otherwise excellent article concerning IFR alternates, he states "If the alternate airport has a precision approach (ILS or PAR), it can be filed as an alternate if, from one hour before to one hour after the planned time of arrival, the forecast is no worse than 600 feet agl and two miles" (emphasis added). FAR 91.169(c) states that the alternate weather minimums must be as you stated but " at the estimated time of arrival at the alternate airport."

Certainly your method is safer, but I didn't want to see a major aviation magazine misquoting the regs.

Mark Yokers AOPA 996851
Hamilton, Ohio

Yokers is correct regarding the wording of the regulation. However, many pilots conservative in their alternate-airport planning employ the "one hour before to one hour after" arrival window, required by the FARs only in determining whether an alternate is required - Ed.

I enjoyed "Precise But Flexible Flying." However, in the sidebar article ("Takeoff Minimums") you state that the required foot-per-nautical-mile gradient is 300.

My 1997 issue of the Aeronautical Information Manual, paragraph 5-2-6(b)(2) states that "Obstacle clearance is based on the aircraft climbing at least 200 feet per nautical mile."

Dan Wegman AOPA 1117407
Albuquerque, New Mexico

The 300-feet-per-mile figure was intended as an example only. Required climb gradients are 200 feet per mile unless otherwise stated - Ed.

Behavior on the ramp

Kudos to Thomas Haines for his suggestions and observations on the sadly deteriorating state of civility that seems to pervade even flying. Thomas, you said it all, except for "turn your stereo or TV set down!"

Robert Alan Soltis AOPA 553603
San Diego, California

The whole nine yards

Barry Schiff's column and features are important contributions to your great magazine. I certainly am not qualified to dispute most of his answers to his test questions, but the "all nine yards" answer related to P-51s (" Test Pilot," July Pilot) isn't entirely accurate. It may be correct as far as World War II is concerned, but the origin goes back at least 100 years before that.

When tailors were hired to make a gentleman's suit, the choice was either without a vest, which took seven yards to complete, or "the whole nine yards," which included a vest. This source has been attributed to both prairie and "big city" tailors' take your pick, but World War II was not the first time the phrase was used.

Robert H. Smith AOPA 1187980
Los Angeles, California

Schiff's July quiz acquainted me with yet another "origin" of the phrase "the whole nine yards." Another is that a cement truck holds nine yards. One more, perhaps the earliest, is that the most formal wedding train is nine yards long, so that going "the whole nine yards" is to have the ultimate ceremony. The wedding train is also the origin of the phrase "full drag."

Dave Raley AOPA 440030
Laurel Hill, North Carolina

Erratum

The manufacturer of the B-36 bomber was misidentified in " Pilot Briefing" (July Pilot). The aircraft was built by Convair.

Because of incomplete information supplied to AOPA Pilot, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics was not recognized in " Pilot Briefing" (June Pilot) as planning to build a flying replica of the 1903 Wright Flyer. AIAA also built the replica tested at the NASA Ames Research Center in preparation for the flying model.

We welcome your comments. Address your letters to: Editor, AOPA Pilot, 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, Maryland 21701. Send e-mail to [email protected]. Include your full name, address, and AOPA member number on all correspondence, including e-mail. Letters will be edited for style and length.